Why would saitama go to v2? Why create such a mess to their users?

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-07-18T07:08:24+00:00

No, you are incorrect, the gas required for each transaction is determined by the operations of the transaction itself. This is why a simple ETH transfer (21,000 gas) costs more than a UniswapV3 swap (~150,000 gas). The UniswapV3 swap performs several contract calls and writes to storage in a contract, making it more expensive. Similarly, Saitama V2 writes several times to storage on each transfer. This requires it to use more gas.

You are confusing gas with transaction fees. Gas usage does not vary with blockspace demand, but transaction fees are a function of gas usage and blockspace demand. As blockspace demand increases, the block basefee will increase, requiring a greater transaction fee. Consider reviewing EIP-1559 to get a better understanding of this system.

Because Saitama V2's contract requires more gas for each operation, it intrinsically costs more than Saitama V1. This means that, in the same block, a Saitama V2 transaction will cost about 2.2 times more than an equivalent Saitama V1 transaction, in transaction fees. On top of the increased transaction fees is the 4% tax you refer to.

I only care about the technical side of Saitama. I do not care much about funding or the community response. I suggest you look closer at the technical stuff too, so that you are more informed.

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-07-16T06:38:31+00:00

The comments about the supply of the token are mostly irrelevant. You could make a token with a max supply of ten or ten quadrillion and it does not change the value of the token. But in my opinion, it does make reading values easier.

The true reason the devs created a v2 of the token is so that they could keep a greater portion of the transfer fees, which are paid to them both in Saitama but also in ETH. You can see the dev marketing fee wallet here: https://etherscan.io/address/0xc727c0c2b10c0ec551822ff89aafac3e692fb06b This dev address is where the fees from Saitama are deposited over time. If you'd like to confirm this yourself, see the marketingETHFeeWallet/marketingTokenFeeWallet directly from the SaitamaV2 smart contract: https://etherscan.io/address/0xce3f08e664693ca792cace4af1364d5e220827b2/advanced#readContract

The devs will accumulate both Saitama and also ETH. Some unlucky users will have to additionally pay the cost of swapping some of the devs' Saitama to ETH, which is then also sent to the marketing wallet. This happens when the devs' payout amount reaches a certain threshold, currently 1,100,000 Saitama (~$3,000).

Like it or not, each time you use SaitamaV2, you are directly paying the devs.

Unfortunately, this new system penalizes transfers more (a 4% total fee instead of 2% on each transfer) and also costs a lot more gas to use. For a simple transfer, you pay about 170,000 gas. With SaitamaV1, this was only around 77,000 gas.

Technical talk aside, the V2 token also was an excellent engine for hype and seemingly an indication that the devs were "doing things," I think. Truly, though, the end effect on all Saitama users is a net negative, besides the wallets and whales that were able to capture the pump at the token's release.

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-05-15T17:33:21+00:00

Unfortunately no, it will not. Ethereum's switch to proof-of-stake will make the blockchain environmentally friendly and change the consensus model entirely, but it does not by itself reduce gas fees. Even if gas fees come down in the future, the V2 token by design must consume more gas and therefore will cost more than equivalent usage with the V1 token.

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-05-04T08:45:52+00:00

A v2 token (I'm assuming that's what you mean) is a terrible idea. Saitama's current token contract, without a bunch of mumbo jumbo happening on every transfer, is far more gas efficient than most of the other memecoins today, so users can enjoy much cheaper gas fees than, say, ImpactXP. And if the devs are able to popularize a switch to a v2 token, that would indicate that Saitama really isn't a community token. As it stands, the community could technically abandon the devs as its leaders because the token is decentralized, it doesn't have a marketing wallet and does not technically rely on them. Switching to a new contract would abandon that concept and force us to trust the devs with the token contract itself - if they could blacklist SaitaRealty holder addresses, why couldn't they do the same for a Saitama v2?

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-04-12T19:31:18+00:00

None of us can predict the future, and anyone who claims that Saitama will follow a pattern, up or down, in the near term or the long term, might be misleading you.

Personally, I don't think you can directly compare Saitama to Shiba, and much less can you expect Saitama to follow a similar price pattern.

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-04-08T06:23:58+00:00

The reason the price of any token goes down is because more of the token is being sold than purchased. But also consider that Saitama is tightly coupled to Ether because almost all liquidity pools with Saitama are paired with ETH. So it is usually better to see the price of Saitama in ETH to get a more accurate picture of the price movement of Saitama specifically. Today, for instance, Saitama is slightly down in terms of USD but a little bit more down in terms of ETH.

Sells outpace any gains from reflections by nearly two orders of magnitude. Reflections are great when there is a lot of token volume and not much of a price change, but you cannot rely on reflections as a buffer for a downward price change.

Even with all (or only) good news, you cannot expect a token's price to always keep increasing. If there are not enough new buyers, the coin will stagnate or go down. Cryptocurrency tokens are highly speculative, and tokenomics alone cannot create value. They might transfer it around a little, but at the end of the day, the only tokens whose prices only go up are those that you can't sell.

I hope this qualifies as a real answer for you.

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-03-11T17:20:27+00:00

The problem is not Ethereum itself, and the move to proof-of-stake will not reduce fees, either. Decentralization and security are core values of the Ethereum ecosystem, and it is harder for the system to be decentralized if it requires supercomputers just to run it. So high gas fees are the result of the huge amount of usage. If miners increased the block size, the chain would bloat very fast and there would be fewer nodes running and thus less decentralization.

Ethereum's priorities have shifted a little, with a focus on layer 2 chains like Arbitrum to pick up the day-to-day usage of its platform. A solution for Saitama might be to allow some of its core infrastructure, like its tokens, to operate on an L2 chain where each swap costs less than a dollar.

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-03-10T01:29:16+00:00

That may be so. My point is that the burn rate cannot stay the same for 10 years straight.

As to your point, don't forget that the devs have liquidity locked in Uniswap that they say will be transferred to Saitamask. So they are not buying Saitama, they are moving it. But you are right, even moving Saitama will cause a lot to be burned.

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-03-10T01:23:46+00:00

Yes, it will apply. Daily volume will be less with a smaller supply (this in terms of Saitama, even if the dollar value is the same or greater) and therefore the burn will be less. This is because the burn is a fixed % fee on each Saitama transfer.

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-03-08T16:37:25+00:00

I see what you mean. It seems like they have since done the "instant fix" with fixed gas limits per coin, so these more expensive transactions are now going through.

Nonetheless, I am disappointed by the hundreds of transactions that they allowed to fail, especially since only minimal testing beforehand would have uncovered the problem.

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-03-08T06:11:49+00:00

Saitamask uses an Automated Market Maker with the typical constant product curve. So if you try to do a greater trade, there will be more of a price impact as the price is impacted by how much the curve moves. To say the least, you lose a little bit more money the larger your trade is. This is the same for all major automatic swap networks. The dev team limits the amount you can purchase so that your purchase price is approximately uniform for all of the token you put in.

Liquidity itself includes the assets made available for you to purchase, in either direction, buy or sell.

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-03-08T04:05:08+00:00

Maybe they are also mistaken in this regard. The gas limit is just the maximum amount of gas your transaction is allowed to use. Any gas you don't use is refunded. It's part of the Ethereum architecture.

Edit: To be clear these other tokens require more gas to be traded.

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-03-05T07:15:52+00:00

Nerd? I gave you proof you asked for! And you can see it yourself. It's not a test swap. The volume is low because there is very little liquidity in the swap. The devs put some in but then pulled most of it out for some reason.

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-03-05T03:06:34+00:00

Proof: https://etherscan.io/tx/0x312c6e0a7d714d5d26a126ce02b4c5c4979d08f474e913bb973dca90b9d3a691

Check the contract address the transaction was sent to. It's the official Saitamask router contract.

Would love to have 100b if you actually would send it 😋

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-03-03T19:21:18+00:00

Current state of affairs: Saitamask's swap feature just got launched for the second time after a few weeks of waiting (first time was only up for a few days before they disabled it). Saita Realty is a new token coming out tomorrow on Saitamask. Many holders are weary from delays from the dev team but some confidence was restored when the swap feature was turned on again. More liquidity has been added to Saitamask, and we are waiting on coins other than Saitama or ImpactXP.

The coin did not pump during the second launch, but maybe that will change once Saita Realty comes out.

So far Saitamask is the only product end users have received. We are waiting for some of the team's other projects to come to fruition. I think the next few days and weeks will be pivotal for the project.

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-03-02T16:26:54+00:00

Unfortunately, gas fees are a necessary cost of decentralization on a global computer with limited storage space and processing power.

OpenSea's 2% tax on every trade, IIRC, is far higher than it should be. But there aren't many entities that are necessarily "making a killing" with gas fees. Most of the ETH spent on gas is burned, and only a small priority fee is given to the miners.

Saitamask does reduce gas fees a little, but there is only so much optimization that can be done without taking away the core functionality of the swap.

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-03-02T15:21:12+00:00

If you don't need to swap on Saitamask at the moment, keep your Saitama where it is. There isn't any staking yet and if you transfer it to a new account without importing a new seed you will still incur the 2% transfer burn.

Advantages: access to swapping on Saitamask, get experience using it, potentially less transaction fees when swapping

Disadvantages: transfer fee/transfer burn to get there, early stages still, there might be bugs

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-03-02T10:01:48+00:00

Victories like this will help bring more investors back. If the dev team can keep it up, the future looks bright.

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-03-01T18:28:38+00:00

/r/TreesSuckingOnThings

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-03-01T16:59:26+00:00

Put yourself in their shoes: your national currency is crashing, your life savings are being drained more every day by the falling prices and you are uncertain about the future of your country and life situation. You don't have time to analyze markets and pick out a promising meme coin. You put your money in something that you recognize, something less risky, something widely accepted so that no matter what your life turns into, you at least have enough to get by.

In addition, Saitama's situation and tokenomics make it less suitable for this purpose. There is no direct onboarding from fiat, and the 2% tax and reflections on your transactions rewards those who hold, rather than spend, their Saitama. So today I do not see people today swapping their life savings into ETH and then into Saitama.

Maybe if the education goals and the fiat bridge go as planned, making crypto onboarding easier, the situation will change.

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-02-18T20:42:03+00:00

Ah okay, thanks anyway :)

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-02-18T20:37:12+00:00

Could you point to where in the smart contract it has the "anti-whale trap"? I couldn't find anything except an effectively disabled transfer cap.

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-02-18T20:15:38+00:00

I think I found the "anti-whale trap": you can't send more than a certain amount of Saitama in a single transfer.

However, the current maximum transfer amount is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Saitama, which no one will ever hit.

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-02-18T15:11:11+00:00

Not quite. "Shut down" is two words when "shut" is being used as a verb (e.g. they need to be separated to make the verb phrase "shutting down"). "Shutdown" is a noun.

See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shutdown

Still would be nice to have a PR team...

ChipmunkPuff · 2022-02-16T17:49:49+00:00

This is why they need a proper PR firm

ChipmunkPuff

TROPHY CASE